Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!! - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!! - Microsoft Windows ; In article , "John" wrote: > Michelle Steiner wrote: > > In article , > > "John" wrote: > > > >>>> Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is > >>>> superior ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 304

Thread: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

  1. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    "John" wrote:

    > Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > > In article ,
    > > "John" wrote:
    > >
    > >>>> Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is
    > >>>> superior sounding. Why not demand the best sound quality from
    > >>>> Apple?
    > >>>
    > >>> We already have the best sound quality from Apple. Why should Apple
    > >>> pay lots of money to MickeySoft for inferior quality?
    > >>>
    > >>> BTW, how are your diapers?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Bull****!! WMA SOUNDS BETTER.

    > >
    > > Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.

    >
    >
    >
    > Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine. And not
    > according to my own testing.
    >
    >


    You must be basing that claim on "The big question remaining is how the
    acknowledged Cadillac of codecs, namely AAC, would do among the present
    company." which clearly shows that they haven't done such a test.

    <http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...article_id=235
    &page_number=4&preview=>

  2. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    "John" wrote:

    > Point to even one study done double blind that shows MP3 or AAC
    > superior to WMA at the same bit rate.


    Show any studies that shows the superiority of WMA?

    --
    Never play strip tarot.

  3. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article
    ,
    Tim Adams wrote:

    > > Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine. And
    > > not
    > > according to my own testing.

    >
    > You must be basing that claim on "The big question remaining is how the
    > acknowledged Cadillac of codecs, namely AAC, would do among the present
    > company." which clearly shows that they haven't done such a test.
    >
    > <http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...article_id=235
    > &page_number=4&preview=>


    And that is typical of JDoggy's method of argumentation.

    --
    Never play strip tarot.

  4. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article , John wrote:
    >>
    >> Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.

    >
    >
    >
    >Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine. And not according to my own testing.


    Reference please?

    --
    -
    -Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
    - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
    - http://www.aatrevue.com

  5. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    "John" wrote:

    > Point to even one study done double blind that shows MP3 or AAC superior to
    > WMA at the same bit rate.


    John, you are such a lost puppy...

    AAC wins at 128k, WMA has a slight advantage at the lower 64k...

    http://tinyurl.com/257lt

    So I guess you are right if you primarily listen to 64k Bit Rate Files

    Apple users are right if they primarily listen to 128k Bit Rate Files

    Bottom-line, if you want a quality bit rate... AAC wins!

    Oxford

    -

  6. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    "John" wrote:

    > Looks like YOU ARE WAY behind on understanding audio. Thats some Dolby BS
    > promotional brochure.


    Yeah, the guys that came up with MP3, also co-invented AAC...

    Here's some more reading for you John...

    http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/aac/

    Looks like you already lost this arguement... and in the first few hours!

    Oxford

    -

  7. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    Tim Adams wrote:
    >In article ,
    > "John" wrote:
    >
    >> Michelle Steiner wrote:
    >> > In article ,
    >> > "John" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>>> Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is
    >> >>>> superior sounding. Why not demand the best sound quality from
    >> >>>> Apple?
    >> >>>
    >> >>> We already have the best sound quality from Apple. Why should Apple
    >> >>> pay lots of money to MickeySoft for inferior quality?
    >> >>>
    >> >>> BTW, how are your diapers?
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Bull****!! WMA SOUNDS BETTER.
    >> >
    >> > Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine. And not
    >> according to my own testing.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >You must be basing that claim on "The big question remaining is how the
    >acknowledged Cadillac of codecs, namely AAC, would do among the present
    >company." which clearly shows that they haven't done such a test.
    >
    ><http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...article_id=235
    >&page_number=4&preview=>


    That can't be it...that's an old review, using WMA 8.

    I've seen tests on crutchfield.com and other places that place the
    two codecs very close (with AAC coming out on top for higher bit rates),
    but nothing I've seen that's definitive.

    So...what's the SOUND & VISION reference?
    --
    -
    -Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
    - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
    - http://www.aatrevue.com

  8. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    COLA Facts wrote:

    > That would be a challenge for Apple and their users.
    > They are still stuck in the single button mouse technology.


    You are stuck in the past. I have a three-button mouse, and the buttons
    are programmable.
    --
    D.F. Manno
    dommanno@netscape.net
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)

  9. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    Oxford wrote:
    > "John" wrote:
    >
    >> Point to even one study done double blind that shows MP3 or AAC
    >> superior to WMA at the same bit rate.

    >
    > John, you are such a lost puppy...
    >
    > AAC wins at 128k, WMA has a slight advantage at the lower 64k...
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/257lt
    >
    > So I guess you are right if you primarily listen to 64k Bit Rate Files
    >
    > Apple users are right if they primarily listen to 128k Bit Rate Files
    >
    > Bottom-line, if you want a quality bit rate... AAC wins!
    >
    > Oxford
    >
    > -



    Point to a study from a competent audio publication idiot. Not some 3rd rate non audiophile companys website.



  10. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    R. Tang wrote:
    > In article , John
    > wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine.
    >> And not according to my own testing.

    >
    > Reference please?




    Look it up yourself. About 1 year ago.



  11. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    John Rosado wrote in message news:...
    > If everyone would take a quick moment to send Wal-Mart's burgeoning
    > music store an email to JUST SAY NO TO MICROSOFT's WMA Format!
    >
    >
    > musicdownloads@walmart.com
    >
    >
    > Explain to them to use an OPEN Established STANDARD like MPEG4's AAC
    >
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/
    >
    > http://www.m4if.org/
    >
    > http://www.telos-systems.com/?/techtalk/aac/default.htm
    >
    > http://www.isma.tv/home
    >
    >
    >
    > You can may make a difference!
    >
    > ::::::


    But.... I watch all my porn in WMA *sob*

  12. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article , John wrote:
    >R. Tang wrote:
    >> In article , John
    >> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine.
    >>> And not according to my own testing.

    >>
    >> Reference please?

    >
    >
    >
    >Look it up yourself. About 1 year ago.


    Ah. So you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    That might have been the case, but you confirmed it for me.
    Somebody who knows what they're talking about could cite volume and verse,
    and be able to summarize the salient points.

    You can't so you don't.
    --
    -
    -Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
    - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
    - http://www.aatrevue.com

  13. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    COLA Facts wrote:

    > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:14:47 -0700, Snit
    > wrote:
    >
    > >"Matthew Russotto" wrote on 12/19/03 3:03 PM:
    > >
    > >> In article , John
    > >> wrote:
    > >>> John Rosado wrote:
    > >>>> If everyone would take a quick moment to send Wal-Mart's burgeoning
    > >>>> music store an email to JUST SAY NO TO MICROSOFT's WMA Format!
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is superior
    > >>> sounding. Why not demand the best sound quality from
    > >>> Apple?
    > >>
    > >> Because the iPod is smaller than a floppy drive.
    > >>

    > >How does it compare to a two button mouse? Two button mice should play
    > >WMA's, too.

    >
    > That would be a challenge for Apple and their users.
    > They are still stuck in the single button mouse technology.
    >


    Are they? I'm a Mac user and the mouse on my desktop machine has 4
    buttons and a scroll wheel. Guess what? OSX Panther doesn't need a
    driver for it either yet all the buttons and the scroll wheerl are
    supported. So, in what way is Apple "stuck the single mouse technology?"

    This I've got to hear.

    --
    George Graves
    ------------------
    "Knowledge is Good"
    Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College

  14. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article
    ,
    Tim Adams wrote:

    > In article ,
    > "John" wrote:
    >
    > > Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > > > In article ,
    > > > "John" wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is
    > > >> superior sounding. Why not demand the best sound quality from Apple?
    > > >
    > > > We already have the best sound quality from Apple. Why should Apple
    > > > pay lots of money to MickeySoft for inferior quality?
    > > >
    > > > BTW, how are your diapers?

    > >
    > >
    > > Bull****!! WMA SOUNDS BETTER.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Only to people with tin ears like you.


    Even if it did, it's like asking whether cow **** smells better than dog
    ****. They're both still **** as are WMD and MP3.

    --
    George Graves
    ------------------
    "Knowledge is Good"
    Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College

  15. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    "John" wrote:

    > Michelle Steiner wrote:
    > > In article ,
    > > "John" wrote:
    > >
    > >>>> Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is
    > >>>> superior sounding. Why not demand the best sound quality from
    > >>>> Apple?
    > >>>
    > >>> We already have the best sound quality from Apple. Why should Apple
    > >>> pay lots of money to MickeySoft for inferior quality?
    > >>>
    > >>> BTW, how are your diapers?
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Bull****!! WMA SOUNDS BETTER.

    > >
    > > Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.

    >
    >
    >
    > Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine. And not
    > according to my own testing.




    'Sound and Vision'? 'SOUND AND VISION'? Do you know who and what 'Sound
    and Vision' magazine is? They are "Stereo Review" renamed, and as such
    they have been the laughing stock of the audio world for at least 35
    years. They are NOTHING more than a PR mouthpiece for manufacturers.
    Their editorial policy is that one never says anything bad against
    advertisers and never give a piece of equipment a bad review.

    "Of all the amplifiers I've ever tested, this was one of them." - Julian
    Hirsch, Stereo Review.

    You get funnier every day Johnny! LOL!

    --
    George Graves
    ------------------
    "Knowledge is Good"
    Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College

  16. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    gwangung@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:

    > In article , John
    > wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine. And
    > >not according to my own testing.

    >
    > Reference please?



    Doesn't matter. 'Sound and Vision' has no critical credibility. They are
    a PR mouthpiece for mid-fi audio and home video manufacturers. Now if he
    had said 'The Absolute Sound' or 'The Perfect Vision' or
    'High-Performance Review' or the British 'Hi-Fi News' or even
    'Stereophile' (which ain't the magazine it once was) his ramblings might
    be worth investigating. As it is, don't bother.

    --
    George Graves
    ------------------
    "Knowledge is Good"
    Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College

  17. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    On 19 Dec 2003 23:12:41 GMT, gwangung@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:

    >In article , John wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine. And not according to my own testing.

    >
    > Reference please?


    I believe this is the article John is speaking of:

    http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...&page_number=1

    As for which format is better, there is no clear cut answer. It depends upon the
    bit rate and the material in question.

    The short answer is that they are all lossy schemes and when played on truly
    fine equipment, like I have in my studio, it is generally quite obvious when
    compared to the original.

    What is not quite obvious is which scheme sounds better..........
    Like I said it depends....

    At the moment I am listening to some Art Tatum on a Thorens turntable equipped
    with a ubiquitous Shure V15 Type 4 played through a Fisher tube amp (actually a
    Fisher 800 receiver) circa 1960 and it sounds glorious.
    I usually use my Stanton 881S or my Ortofon but I am slumming it today

    flatfish+++


  18. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    In article ,
    flatfish+++@linuxmail.org wrote:

    > On 19 Dec 2003 23:12:41 GMT, gwangung@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:
    >
    > >In article , John
    > >wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> Yes, "WMA SOUNDS BETTER." is bull****.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>Not according to a double blind study by Sound and Vision magazine. And
    > >>not according to my own testing.

    > >
    > > Reference please?

    >
    > I believe this is the article John is speaking of:
    >
    > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...e_id=235&page_
    > number=1
    >
    > As for which format is better, there is no clear cut answer. It depends upon
    > the
    > bit rate and the material in question.
    >
    > The short answer is that they are all lossy schemes and when played on truly
    > fine equipment, like I have in my studio, it is generally quite obvious when
    > compared to the original.
    >
    > What is not quite obvious is which scheme sounds better..........
    > Like I said it depends....
    >
    > At the moment I am listening to some Art Tatum on a Thorens turntable
    > equipped
    > with a ubiquitous Shure V15 Type 4 played through a Fisher tube amp
    > (actually a
    > Fisher 800 receiver) circa 1960 and it sounds glorious.
    > I usually use my Stanton 881S or my Ortofon but I am slumming it today
    >
    > flatfish+++
    >


    It's really interesting, isn't it that this old, tubed analog gear
    sounds so much better than today's hotest most technically advanced
    solid-state digital? Me? I'm setting here listening to Colemam Hawkins
    on my J.A. Michelle GyroDeck/Audioquest PT-8 arm/Sumiko Blackbird MC
    cartridge through my Audio Research SP-9 Mk II tube preamp and my pair
    of VTL 140 tube monobloc power amps (set to the triode mode) and
    eminating from my brand-new Martin-Logan 'Aeon i' hybrid electrostatic
    loudspeakers. Mr. Hawkin's tenor saxophone, is, for all intents and
    purposes, right here in the room with me. It doesn't get much better
    than that (and the dry martini I'm sipping on as I listen and wait for
    friends to come by so that we can go to dinner). Life is VERY good
    indeed!

    --
    George Graves
    ------------------
    "Knowledge is Good"
    Emile Faber -Founder, Faber College

  19. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:54:42 GMT, George Graves wrote:


    >'Sound and Vision'? 'SOUND AND VISION'? Do you know who and what 'Sound
    >and Vision' magazine is? They are "Stereo Review" renamed, and as such
    >they have been the laughing stock of the audio world for at least 35
    >years. They are NOTHING more than a PR mouthpiece for manufacturers.
    >Their editorial policy is that one never says anything bad against
    >advertisers and never give a piece of equipment a bad review.


    Stereo Review had some interesting stuff back in the 70's but like you say, they
    rarely said anything bad about the review units.
    See below..


    >"Of all the amplifiers I've ever tested, this was one of them." - Julian
    >Hirsch, Stereo Review.


    I had the privilege of meeting Mr Hirsh once and I asked him why he never
    trashed a product in Stereo Review and his answer was pretty simple.
    If a product was *that bad* it was sent back to the manufacturer and the review
    never appeared in the mag.

    Mr. Hirsh truly believed that differences in audio quality could be quantified,
    measured and explained by testing.
    In short if 2 pieces of equipment measured the same, they would sound the same.
    In some respects his theory has merit, but in others it doesn't hold water.
    If I hit a A on a Steinway and then do the same on a Baldwin an measure the
    overtones they will pretty much measure the same, yet they will sound different
    to the human ear.
    Not the greatest example I know, but you get the idea.

    In closing when I was in high school/college back in the 70's and early 80's I
    worked in several super high end, snooty audio salons in NYC and the stories I
    could tell you would split your sides.

    We were one of the first shops to get an ABX Comparator, which would keep the
    levels of audio EXACT when switching from one system to another to compare.
    For those that don't know, the louder system will ALWAYS sound better, assuming
    both units are in the same class.

    We were selling Audio Research, Mark Levinson etc gear at prices that were in
    the stratosphere and quite frankly most of us could not hear much, if any
    difference between it and the run of the mill Marantz.

    The difference was in the quality of the unit and the smoothness of the
    controls. Also every unit was hand calibrated and as such there was a consistent
    quality control in place meaning the 1st unit sounded just as good as #9000.

    The same could not be said of the mass produced units.

    I saw people paying $4000.00 for a 35w tube amp whose components weren't worth
    $35.00 with the exception maybe of the output transformers.

    We used to call them "whales" and I had a regular clientele that would upgrade
    their units by the month or on schedule with StereoPhile magazine.

    Whenever one of the reviewers working for StereoPhile would give a unit a great
    review the "whales" would be lined up at the door the next day looking to trade
    up.

    I met a guy whose tube amps were completely encased in concrete to prevent
    vibrations from interfering with the sound.

    He was one of the weirdest people I have ever met!

    Point is, that there is a point of diminishing returns but there will always be
    people gullible to buy what the reviewers push.

    I went to a seminar given by AES once and they had a double blind test of
    various speaker wire.
    They had normal zip cord and they actually tossed in a set of automobile jumper
    cables as well.

    The jumper cables came out on top for best sound............................

    Take a look at the high end audio groups for some other prime examples.


    flatfish+++


    >You get funnier every day Johnny! LOL!



  20. Re: Tell Wal-Mart - NO to WMA!!!

    "COLA Facts" wrote on 12/19/03 3:55 PM:

    > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:14:47 -0700, Snit
    > wrote:
    >
    >> "Matthew Russotto" wrote on 12/19/03 3:03 PM:
    >>
    >>> In article , John
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> John Rosado wrote:
    >>>>> If everyone would take a quick moment to send Wal-Mart's burgeoning
    >>>>> music store an email to JUST SAY NO TO MICROSOFT's WMA Format!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Why not send an email to Apple and ask for WMA for iPod. It is superior
    >>>> sounding. Why not demand the best sound quality from
    >>>> Apple?
    >>>
    >>> Because the iPod is smaller than a floppy drive.
    >>>

    >> How does it compare to a two button mouse? Two button mice should play
    >> WMA's, too.

    >
    > That would be a challenge for Apple and their users.
    > They are still stuck in the single button mouse technology.
    >

    Oh. That is right. You can not get 2 button mice for Macs... that is why
    PC's are better.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast